Thank you for the good post. I have been thinking about this problem for some time.

We know that CIA has been working in Iran already quite long and that Americans want to change the government in Iran. A quite detailed article about the election in Iran and American meddlings there is available here:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14095

Western mainstream media is nowadays so corrupt and full of conscious lies that by reading only those news it is quite impossible to know what is really going on in Iran. We cannot rely much on Iran official medias either...

So even with modern communications systems transferring videos almost in real time from the other side of the world, we don't really know!

Well, it's interesting. The one article makes a convincing case the election was not stolen; the other raises specifics on how it might have been in fact stolen. Which is it, Bill? Tell us your thoughts.
I'm no fan of Ahmedinejad, and think we're right to regard him as repressive and noxious. It sounds like he was taking no chances and may have committed some electoral skulduggery (like if it's true the government turned off texting nationwide so opposition observers couldn't tabulate results.) And yet he still may have won a majority. The independent poll suggested a majority supported him, and I think the shock of opposition candidate supporters on hearing the result is not unlike what we felt when Americans voted for Bush in sufficient numbers that misdeeds in Florida and Ohio were able to put him over the top on two occasions. Whatever the truth, I'm glad to see some nuance about Iran breaking through the media wall.
All your readers should watch the wonderful film Persepolis if they haven't already.

Joaquin: My own take is that the mullahs made sure Ahmedinejad won big, but that he would have won anyway.

On the other hand, I'm reading a report linked in Iran and Leftist Confusion, and it makes a believable case for massive cheating.

And that's why I report, you decide.